Slashdot Log In
AMD Shows Upcoming Phenom II CPU At 6.0 GHz+
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Nov 20, 2008 02:50 PM
from the calm-down-there-cowpoke dept.
from the calm-down-there-cowpoke dept.
Vigile writes "Today during a press briefing at AMD's offices in Austin, TX the company showed off some upcoming technology that should be available sometime early in 2009. What was most impressive was the overclocked speeds of the pending Phenom II X4 45nm processors. On air cooling AMD showed the quad-core CPU running at nearly 4.0 GHz while with much more extreme liquid nitrogen cooling help the same CPU reached over 6.0 GHz! It looks like AMD's newest processor might finally once again compete with the best from Intel, including its recent Core i7 CPUs."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AMD Shows Upcoming Phenom II CPU At 6.0 GHz+
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 159 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
first question.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:first question.. (Score:5, Informative)
That's for the current generation Phenoms. You likely want this article [wikipedia.org], which covers the Phenom 2 procs.
TDP spec at 3.0ghz is 125W, so don't think he's exaggerating that much. I'd guesstimate 150-200W at 4ghz.
Parent
Re:first question.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Overclocking BS (Score:3, Informative)
For example, here is a video from 2006 where a Pentium 4 processor is overclocked to 5 GHz. [youtube.com]
So no, it doesn't look like "AMD's newest processor might finally once again compete with the best from Intel."
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't get a Core 2 CPU to run at 5Ghz no matter how hard you try.
What this proves for AMD's CPU is that the architecture is able to handle 6Ghz, and the only problem is heat. Heat is a big problem, sure, but it's delt with every day in all sorts of new and creative ways - but usually just from reducing fab size and lowering voltage.
I personally don't care much anymore about who's CPU is 5% faster than the other. I choose what gives me the best options.. And I really have had excellent results with AMD's processors in the past. I have a few Core 2 based machines and they're nice too, no doubt. It just doesn't really matter anymore.
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Informative)
You can't get a Core 2 CPU to run at 5Ghz no matter how hard you try.
Given that the Nehalem is reaching the same speeds [theinquirer.net] or higher [fudzilla.com] on air-cooling, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel could match 6 GHz under liquid nitrogen cooled conditions.
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the Nehalem is reaching the same speeds or higher on air-cooling, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel could match 6 GHz under liquid nitrogen cooled conditions.
Here [hexus.net] is an example of Core i7 at 5.2 GHz on LN2
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but it's quite easy. All you need is the following:
- Intel Core 2 Duo SP9300 (x 3)
- Duct Tape
Bam! 6.78 Ghz. Done.
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Insightful)
personally don't care much anymore about who's CPU is 5% faster than the other. I choose what gives me the best options.. And I really have had excellent results with AMD's processors in the past. I have a few Core 2 based machines and they're nice too, no doubt. It just doesn't really matter anymore.
When they're about equal, I choose AMD, so that next time I build a computer I'll still have a choice.
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, I don't think overclocking in liquid nitrogen is cause for a slam dunk conclusion that AMD is now competitive with Intel, but stating that it's not impressive and not an indication of the performance of the processor indicates a complete lack of understanding of electrical design.
This wouldn't have worked, for example, with the original PPC 7400 (G4) past 500MHz. As it turned out, there was a hard stop getting past that. Finding FMax (maximum frequency) independent of reliability and power concerns highlights design weaknesses. If they can overclock by 50% with adequate cooling, one can conclude they don't have any early or late mode problems preventing higher frequencies, and that metal isn't the limiting factor. In fact, they can easily conclude that the electrical design is sound and that their limit will be what they can qualify from a reliability perspective.
Parent
Re:Overclocking BS (Score:5, Insightful)
This is far from impressive. Showing the overclocking results, especially on liquid nitrogen, is not a good indication of the day to day performance of the processor.
If the overclocking results were the only thing in the full article, your argument would be valid. However, your comment indicates that you read the short summary, did a quick search for your P4 overclocking link, and posted for quick mod points from Intel fanboys.
TFA shows the processor benchmarking at 3GHz, and 4GHz with air cooling, likely a custom air setup that would not be uncommon for many self builders. Check Intel's speeds, I'll even give you a link to a vendor [newegg.com]. I even filtered for the highest GHz. They are about the same.
So Yes, it does look like ""AMD's newest processor might finally once again compete with the best from Intel." Maybe it doesn't blow them away, but compete with Intel it does.
(This commenter recognizes that raw GHz is not the end-all and be-all of the final experience, but this is the only concrete number we currently have to argue about)
Parent
Patience (Score:1, Funny)
If they just wait six months, their new chip won't be such a hot product and thus won't need liquid nitrogen to reach 6GHz
All good but... (Score:3, Funny)
Will it run Vista?
Misleading title (Score:4, Informative)
If you need liquid nitrogen to boost it to 6 GHz, it's not all that interesting. Nehalem 2.66 GHz offering has also been shown to overclock to 4 GHz on air cooling, and some people have got the 3.2 GHz offering up to 4.5 GHz on air. On GHz they're roughly the same, possibly with a slight Intel edge.
I thought both companies were ditching the GHz war and fighting for actual performance supremacy? What's with the silly "my GHz is bigger than yours" competition? Do we have PPW numbers, or just press releases that mean nothing?
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
The Phenom seem to perform somewhat better under linux, or at least gcc produces better code for them than it does for intel chips...
(note, this is based on 64bit gentoo, gcc 4.3.0 compiled with -O2 and appropriate cpu type setting on a 2.3ghz phenom 9500 and 2.4ghz Q6600)
Parent
Re:Basically (Score:5, Informative)
For games, doesn't much matter. Get a dual core chip that's reasonable and you should be fine. Games do use the CPU but the GPU is by far more important. You can get a quad if you really want but at this time very few can use it at all, and those that can don't tend to be that efficient. A good dual core from the mid range area from either manufacturer should work well.
65 vs 45 nm isn't that important except in terms of energy usage. The 45nm chips are going to use less power for equal performance. However this again isn't a huge deal since the GPU is likely to be the big drain in the system.
Cache isn't all that big a deal. Again, just get whatever the midrange is. Games aren't an area where cache seems to make a large performance difference.
More or less, while these things can make a difference, they don't make enough to justify that much worry or money. You will probably find that a $250 processor works pretty much as good as a $1000 processor, whereas a $300 graphics card is going to be 50% faster than a $150 graphics card. Thus it is clear where your money should go.
Personally I have a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz 65nm chip and it works just fine on all the games I've thrown at it. In general, when games are limited it isn't the CPU it is either the refresh rate of the monitor (it isn't useful to go above that and as with all LCDs mine is set at 60Hz) or the GPU. Now keep in mind the GPU I have is a GeForce GTX 280. So even a GPU that heavy hitting doesn't really seem to need more CPU, for all the games I've messed with.
If I were to build a gaming system today my strategy would be as such:
--Get a midrange CPU. Something probably not more than $300, but not less than $150. Maybe a quad core since I also do audio work, but I'd be looking more at dual cores. I'd make sure it supports DDR2 RAM, since DDR3 is currently too pricey to justify the small gain.
--Get 4GB of RAM. It's cheap, why not.
--Get a nice big drive since bigger drives are faster and games are not getting any smaller.
--Get a video card such that I can afford to get a new one of the same price once every 12-18 months or so.
That last one is key: Your video card is important to games, and it gets outdated real fast. You can't buy one that won't, because new technology comes out all the time. You can drop $2000 on an insane multi-card setup, and it'll still be outdated soon. So, the right answer is to buy less card, more often. I say make it a yearly target. You aren't necessarily going to buy that often, but that's a good target to make sure your price is realistic and you really don't want to buy more often than that. So whatever you can afford per year, get that. Then, when the next worthwhile upgrade in that price range comes along, get it.
That's what I did. Prior to my 280, I had an 8800. They both cost me about $400. I can afford to spend that every year (I spend a lot on my computer, it's important to me). In that case, it was more like 16-18 months, which is fine. You keep your card until there's a new one worthwhile and/or you find a game that doesn't run well, but you are ready to upgrade yearly. Used to be I couldn't afford so much, so I used more midrange cards. I had a GeForce 3 Ti 200 back in the day. Wasn't top of the line, but I could afford to get it, and then to replace it next year if needed.
So get a midrange CPU, plenty of RAM, and a video card that you can upgrade and you should be fine. CPUs have pretty good life these days. It's videocards that are obselete all the time. Good news is that videocards can be gotten for reasonable prices. For example an ATi 4850 will run you about $150, less after rebate. However it is enough to run any game out there at high detail at a reasonable rez. My bet is it lasts more than a year, but at $150, it isn't unreasonable to replace next year if you need.
Parent
Only nitrogen? (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone ever tried cooling a CPU with a continuous flow of liquid helium? :)
Almost a fanboy (Score:1, Flamebait)
Had I not bought two new computers within a year I could almost have been a fanboy. No, they were Intel as I could afford them...
Normal usage, please (Score:1)
I've stuck with AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, AMD clearly differentiates their product. An XP 6000 is faster than a 5000, etc. Buying an Intel CPU is a chore (and make sure you get the right board, That's not always clear either).Basically I'm Lazy, and Intel's made it a pain to pick the right processor.
Re:I've stuck with AMD (Score:5, Informative)
Intel handled (I think they still do) all IPC (Inter-Processor Communication) through the FSB. Which is also the ram bus, and so runs at ram speed. They even did this for inter-core communication, completely screwing any attempts to scale a single intel system to lots of cores and have it still run well.
AMD have 3 independent buses, an inter-core comms for multi-core cpus (runs at cpu clock speed), hypertransport for inter-cpu comms and device comms (runs at multiple GHz independent of CPU speed), and an independent ram bus (runs at ram speed, obviously). This means that an AMD system gains real performance pretty linearly with the number of cores and cpus, and an Intel one didn't.
Intel countered by massively increasing their ram speed, countering the FSB bottleneck for smaller (2 or 4 cores) systems, and by making their cpus capable of more instructions per clock than AMD cpus (a real surprise when it happened), giving them great single-threaded performance. AMD couldn't match the performance of the most powerful Intel Core 2 cpus, so went for energy efficiency in a big way, and generally tried to undercut (instead of outperform) Intel at every turn. AMD's cache architecture was better too, with data not duplicated in all levels of the cache, so AMD cpus effectively had 10% more cache compared to Intel cpus. Intel countered by adding lots more cache to their cpus. AMD also went for forward and backward compatibility in a big way, a BIOS update (and sometimes not even that) is all that is needed to make the oldest socket 939 boards work with the newest AMD cpus. You lose out on a few features (e.g. faster HT and ram), but it makes upgrading an AMD machine much cheaper.
This leaves us with the situation where AMD cpus are great for highly-communicating parallel operations, and are great in clusters and datacenters due to having higher performance per watt (so they cost less to run and need less cooling). They also make for cheaper desktop systems both to build and to run, important if you're on a budget. Intel cpus are great for ram performance, and high-speed single-threaded ops, important if you are building a super-powerful gaming rig. Intel's pushing of their on-board graphics chipsets has also caused Intel cpus to end up in a lot of pre-built machines.
Though to be honest, You don't need a cpu costing more than £60 to play anything released recently at full speed, and AMD is incredibly competitive at those prices (e.g. my AMD X2 5600). The real expense is in graphics these days, though my 2-generation-old nVidia 8800 (rev 1) GTS 320MB hasn't struggled on anything I've bought recently, even on high settings...
Looks like the performance race might be slowing, unless someone comes up with a cheap, working holographic projector :)
Parent
Re:I've stuck with AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
That's all true. Intel's been beating AMD at that for a while now.
Thing is, that's never the question that you want to be asking when you buy a new computer. Who cares which company has the fastest chip at $1000. The important question is: If I spend $90 on a chip, what's the best I can get? What if I spend $150? Is that better than putting $60 somewhere else? How about $200?
In the $75 - $250 range (the range I personally care about), AMD and Intel are pretty much always trading blows. Here's a good chart for illustration: Crysis CPU Benchmark [tomshardware.com]. Note how, for example, the Intel chip at $187 is slower than the AMD chip at $170.
Parent
Sublimates at what? (Score:1, Troll)
as these liquids freeze well below the 109.3F that dry ice sublimates at.
Aside from their glaring misuse of "at", I think they also may have a slight error on the temperature, as I'm fairly certain that dry ice does not remain a solid at room temperature.
*checks the wiki*
Ah. -109.3 F. Much better.
... except that it's still 'F'.
Well, when you have free cooling... (Score:1)
That's why I chose to work with superconducting magnets. Free liquid helium!
Although its pretty useless, I love having an overclocked desktop in my lab to show off to the simulation folks.
Now I can finally turn on Aero.
Flops? (Score:1)
Clock speeds aren't doubling every 18 months now? (Score:2)
I bought a notebook about 5 years ago, that gave 2.4Ghz.
By the oft-misunderstood (I'm sure I'm using it incorrectly here) that would have meant that I could be buying a 9.6Ghz machine these days.
What am I not understanding here? (Bear in mind that CPU's and architecture are really outside my scope of knowledge/interest.)
Re:Riight... (Score:1, Flamebait)
I didn't know the ground was tethered down to start with.
Parent
Re:Is GHz even important? (Score:1, Informative)
GHZ is actually very important. Given that all else remains the same, a 10% increase in clock speed is not greatly different from a 10% improvement in performance in CPU bound applications. Comparing GHZ across different designs is a rather bad idea, but that is not all that is going on here.
Parent
Re:Is GHz even important? (Score:2)
Ummm. No...
We learned that clock speed wasn't the end all and be all of performance.
In this case both Intel and AMD are getting good performance per cycle so upping the clock is a good thing.
If it can do 4Ghz on air then yes it is getting in the the competitive range.
Parent
Re:Bahhh! Legion hardware did that on a i7. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Phenom II will fit in my AM2 motherboard (which started with an Athlon 64 2.0GHz and currently has an Athlon x2 2.6GHz) and use my existing RAM. The intel i7 will not. The intel i7 is significantly more expensive than anything AMD has too.
Parent
Re:And ? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Is GHz even important? (Score:2)
Oblig car analogy: GHz = engine rpms, bus = transmission, cpu architecture = multivalve overhead cam cylinder heads with a supercharger strapped on top.
Parent
Re:Riight... (Score:2)
So wait, there's a magic processor I didn't know about that goes faster than two products that haven't been tested head to head yet, and it's intel's?
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, too.
Parent
Re:they'll beat intel on price, they always do (Score:2)
All things considered, I think you'll have to be pretty cheap to care all that much about the power dissipation of your CPU. Even if it's 100W greater, you're looking at about 50 bucks a year at 6c/kWh if you're maxed out every day. That seems to me like the smallest cost involved.
Parent